interviews from gaza: what hamas wants

102

MIDDLE EAST POLICY, VOL. IX, NO. 4, DECEMBER 2002

INTERVIEWS FROM GAZA: WHAT HAMAS WANTS

Abd al-Aziz Rantisi, Skeikh Ahmed Yassin, Ismail Abu Shanab,

Mahmoud al-Zahar

Dr. Rantisi, Mr. Abu Shanab and Dr. al-Zahar are senior officials of the

Hamas political wing in Gaza. Sheikh Yassin is the organization’s

spiritual leader. Rantisi and Zahar are medical doctors. Abu Shanab is a

U.S.-educated engineer who, like Zahar, teaches at Islamic University in

Gaza City. The following interviews were conducted by New York-based

journalist Roger Gaess during May and June 2002 in Gaza City.

ABD AL-AZIZ RANTISI

GAESS: Do you think the United States has the ability to play a positive role as the conflict

stands now?

RANTISI: Not if you judge by the proposals of Zinni, Tenet, George Mitchell. All of them

told Mr. Arafat to crack down on Hamas, Islamic Jihad, even Fatah. So they are not

looking at the situation from the real angle. They don’t acknowledge the occupation as

the root cause of all the troubles in our area. All the time they pressure Arafat to put an

end to the resistance, but they don’t press Sharon to end his invasion of [Palestinian]

cities, and demolition of [refugee] camps, assassinations of Palestinians, killing of kids. If

the U.S. continues with this policy of putting pressure on the victims and not the aggres-

sors, there will be no solution in the foreseeable future, and both the Palestinians and

Israelis will continue in their vicious circle of violence.

Q: How can people get out of this circle? What do you want to see from the U.S.?

RANTISI: They should be fair. Instead, they are supplying Israel with F-16 fighter jets,

Apache helicopter gunships and other weapons, and providing financial support and even

diplomatic support by way of the [U.N.] veto. They are opposing the Palestinian will

even though we aren’t the side committing aggression. We are just calling for our libera-

tion, for an end to Israel’s occupation, and we are looking to the United States. We hope

the United States will one day not be biased against our dreams.

Q: Would you like Arafat to take a more focused and less compromising stance? Should

he, for instance, just simply say to the U.S. and Israel: Look, the issue is the occupation

and until we hear something positive about ending the occupation, we’re not going to get

tangled up in other issues?

gaess.p65 11/7/2002, 11:57 AM102

103

GAESS: INTERVIEWS FROM GAZA

RANTISI: We hope that Arafat will say that, but whenever the Americans come to our

area, they only pressure him to attack Palestinian organizations in the interest of Israeli

security. On numerous earlier occasions, we tried to provide the kind of atmosphere for

negotiations to succeed. For example, during Camp David the situation here was very

calm. There was no violence at all. President Arafat said to the Israelis, please, give us

20 percent of our historic homeland, and you can build your state on the other 80 percent

of our land – and they refused that. They refused to withdraw, they refused to allow the

return of the refugees, they refused to return Jerusalem, and they even refused to allow

us to build our independent state. There are at this moment four million Palestinian

refugees living under tragic conditions because of Israeli policy. But the Israelis have

insisted on continuing their occupation, confronting us with aggression and daily humilia-

tions. So we have no [political] choice – just the choice to defend ourselves and struggle

for our freedom.

Q: Are there any conditions under which Hamas will freeze its armed struggle?

RANTISI: An end of the occupation – nothing else. Until the occupiers leave, we’ll

continue our struggle.

Q: What specifically do you need to hear from Israel?

RANTISI: We want to hear from them “we are ready to withdraw, and here’s our time-

table for doing so.”

Q: Is the goal of Hamas to end the 1967 occupation, or is it to replace Israel with an

Islamic state?

RANTISI: We need to hear first about the goals of the Israelis. Do they intend to transfer

Palestinians to Jordan? Are they looking to reoccupy Jordan, or seize the northern areas

of Saudi Arabia? The Israelis up until now do not even recognize the Palestinians as a

people. So we shouldn’t answer this question until the Israelis make their intentions

known.

Q: The reason I ask these questions is in part because in the American press the ten-

dency is to associate the most extreme positions with Hamas, sometimes in order to

dehumanize its members, and in that way marginalize them so that they’re not a factor in

an eventual solution to the conflict. If Hamas was able to say clearly that it’s not seeking

the destruction of Israel, then certain limits are established and it’s a group that no one

should have objections to talking with. But when you’re ambiguous on this issue . . .

RANTISI: The most important objective of Hamas is to end the tragedy of the Palestinians,

a majority of whom are living in camps. We want to see our people live like other people

everywhere – living on their land, free of massacres, assassinations or siege. As for

destroying Israel, we haven’t the strength. So to speak as though we did is not at all

logical.

Q: The Israelis are always saying the return of the refugees means the destruction of the

gaess.p65 11/7/2002, 11:57 AM103

104


Jewish state. Is there any way their nerves can be calmed and the refugees still return?

RANTISI: Just a minute; you ask as an American. Is America a Christian state?

Q: I would say no.

RANTISI: So why must there be a Jewish state? Does America support racism?

Q: Well, the Israelis are afraid that if they become a minority in their own state, it will be

changed into an Islamic state.

RANTISI: So, because they fear being a minority, four million Palestinians should live in

misery for life? You are speaking about religion – a “Jewish” state. We can’t accept a

state that’s solely for Jews. It’s not allowed for another religion [other than Islam] to

govern this land. The Jewish people who are living here now, some of them came from

the United States of America or from Canada, some from Europe or from South Africa.

Why did they leave their countries to occupy Palestine and uproot me from my home?

Should we suffer

forever just because

they want to build a

state for Jews?

Q: But Jews don’t

want to live under an

Islamic state.

RANTISI: But they are

living now under an

American state – as we said, it is not a Christian state. Or if we call it a Christian state,

then Jews are living in the United States under the umbrella of a Christian state like other

Americans. Throughout our history, Jews and Muslims have lived everywhere with each

other. Jews are living in Syria now under the umbrella of an Islamic state. They are living

under an Islamic state in Iran as Iranian citizens. Why should people live in cantons?

Q: Would you be comfortable with the idea of a two-state solution – a Palestinian state

and Israel – if Israel were a state . . . I hesitate to say like the United States, but free of

Israel’s current apartheid-like laws? That is, if Israel were neither a Jewish nor an

Islamic state but existed for all its citizens equally?

RANTISI: First of all, as I said, they do not accept at all a Palestinian state or the presence

even of Palestinians in the West Bank and are considering transferring Palestinians out of

the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Mr. Arafat told them clearly that we accept two states,

but they refused, and they will continue to refuse that in the future.

Q: Not long ago The New York Times ran an article titled “Bombers Gloating in Gaza.”

Their writer quoted you as saying that you can encourage or discourage martyrdom

(suicide) operations through the public use of certain words, like saying “the floodgates of

resistance are open” to give the green light for attacks. What role, if any, do you see

We’ve told the Israelis again and again

that if they stop killing our kids, our

civilians, we will not use this [suicide

bomber] weapon. It has been our response

to the Israeli massacre of Palestinians.

gaess.p65 11/7/2002, 11:57 AM104

105


political leaders like yourself having in encouraging or discouraging such operations?

RANTISI: Many times we’ve explained that Hamas has a political wing and a separate

military wing. The military wing plans operations, while the political wing sets a frame-

work for policy and nothing else. So, for example, if we (the political wing) agreed in

negotiations to halt operations, we would see that immediately because we have indirect

connections with the military wing, and all the time they respect our declarations. Not

long ago, for instance, we said Hamas should stop martyr operations in order to give the

Israelis a chance to halt their aggression against our people, but after just two weeks the

Israelis massacred a number of people, so our political leaders said we can’t continue our

cease-fire. Our decisions are announced [publicly] for the very reason that there is no

[direct] connection between the two wings.

In killing our civilians, our kids, Israel has used F-16s, Apache helicopters, missiles,

tanks, they even demolished houses burying people alive in Jenin. So, if we had weapons

like F-16s and Apaches, we would use them, but we haven’t, and so we are left with two

choices. Either we surrender and accept a quiet death, or we defend ourselves using our

own means of struggle. And one of our most effective means, which can rival the impact

of their F-16s, is martyr operations.

We’ve told the Israelis again and again that if they stop killing our kids, our civilians,

we will not use this weapon. It has been our response to the Israeli massacre of Palestin-

ians. For example, after [Israeli settler Baruch] Goldstein’s massacre in Hebron [in 1994]

of innocents at prayer in a mosque, there was a wave of martyr operations; after assassi-

nations, after the killing of five kids in Khan Younis on their way to school, there were

other waves of operations. Each time they’ve been employed as a kind of retaliation to

press the Israelis to stop their aggression and massacre of our people. In this last intifada,

the Israelis have killed more than 2,000 of our civilians, and more than 350 of the dead

have been kids.

SHEIKH AHMED YASSIN

GAESS: Earlier this year The New York Times quoted you as saying that the focus of

Hamas is an end to the occupation. But to that quote the Times writer added, “by that he

(Yassin) means an end to the Jewish occupation of historic Palestine,” which is all of

Palestine. That’s totally different from an end to the 1967 occupation, and it suggests that

the goal of Hamas is the destruction of Israel. So I need to ask you, when you refer to

ending the occupation, do you mean the occupation since 1967 or the whole deal?

YASSIN: All of Palestine is occupied. And there is an entity for the Zionist movement on

Palestinian land which embodies apartheid. We want a place that absorbs Palestinian

Muslims, Jews and others without differentiation.

Q: But as I understand it, Hamas is an organization formed to end the 1967 occupation, or

am I wrong about that?

YASSIN: I accept the 1967 border as a stage of the struggle but not as the definitive

solution because we still have the right to our land. My home is in Ashkelon [on what is

gaess.p65 11/7/2002, 11:57 AM105

106


now Israel’s southern coast] and not within the 1967 boundaries, and millions of refugees

still have homes inside Israel.

Q: I understand that time often creates opportunities we can’t even see right now, but,

given our limited horizon, is a two-state solution at least a possibility? Can we think of a

two-state solution without necessarily thinking that there has to be continued armed

struggle after that?

YASSIN: Our recognition of an Israeli state is conditioned on their recognition of our rights.

Since we still don’t have a state – I don’t have a home to settle on – that means we’re

not in a position to recognize Israel.

Q: Is a two-state solution possible if Israel recognizes a Palestinian state?

YASSIN: To predicate a question on “if” isn’t practical in this situation. We can’t say “if

Israel is not there.” If it were that easy, there would be no problem. What we can say is

that a solution based on 22 percent of the land for the Palestinians and 78 percent for the

Israelis is unjust. Still, Israel has not even acknowledged the Palestinians’ right to

22 percent of our homeland.

Q: I’m trying to under-

stand as an outsider what

a mutually acceptable

solution might be. Short of

the idea of an Islamic state

in all of Palestine – most

of the international com-

munity and certainly the

Jews of Israel would

oppose that idea – I’m thinking, as we talk, that perhaps ending Israeli apartheid is one of

the longer-term goals for achieving a settlement. But I’m also wondering, do you think

the only alternative is an Islamic state in all of Palestine, or is there another alternative?

YASSIN: Our core position is that the Israelis stole our land and our homes and the whole

world supported them, and now, when we are asking for our land back, the world is not

supporting us, and this is unfair.

Q: America was founded, in part, on the same injustice. The Indians – the native Ameri-

cans – were dispossessed of their land bit by bit, put on reservations and then essentially

marginalized, but at least they are almost equal citizens now because there’s substantially

an end to apartheid in America.

YASSIN: And my own best vision for Palestine is of a land for Christians, Jews, Muslims –

a state where everyone has equal rights.

Q: And it doesn’t necessarily have to be an Islamic state?

YASSIN: That question should be left for the democratic process. Let the people select

[A] solution based on 22 percent of the

land for the Palestinians and 78 percent

for the Israelis is unjust. . . . Israel has

not even acknowledged the Palestinians’

right to 22 percent of our homeland.

gaess.p65 11/7/2002, 11:57 AM106

107


the kind of state they want, in the same way that the United States is a state for all its

people and they solve their differences democratically as equals.

ISMAIL ABU SHANAB

GAESS: With both sides now enduring substantial suffering and this second, Al Aqsa

intifada nearing the end of its second year, what is the perspective of Hamas on the role

of armed struggle?

ABU SHANAB: Let me start from the last intifada. In 1987, when Palestinians began to

vehemently protest against the Israeli occupation, they did so without recourse to arms.

The Israelis responded by shooting demonstrators, and Palestinians of all backgrounds

came to their defense, as the intifada spread across Gaza and the West Bank and contin-

ued until 1992. When Baruch Goldstein massacred Palestinians in Hebron [in 1994], the

Palestinians did not have weapons to confront the Israeli army and settlers, and so they

began to explore their options. An early reaction was, one person got explosives and gave

his life in an attack on Israelis. Palestinians from that point on found that to be an effec-

tive weapon, and, since they have little else, they began to use this kind of [suicide]

operation.

Palestinians don’t have tanks to use against Israeli tanks. We don’t have airplanes to

defend ourselves against their airplanes. So as the Israelis kept their occupation in place

and continued to kill our people, many means of resistance got developed. People carried

out attacks on soldiers, on military jeeps, on settlements and military camps, and they

kidnapped Israeli military figures. These, along with martyrdom operations, constitute our

limited forms of resistance against Israel’s huge military arsenal. Our resistance is a

symbol of our rejection of the Israeli occupation, and it serves to remind the Israelis that

they will not be able to continue that occupation without paying a price. And thirdly, the

resistance is an affirmation of Palestinian determination not to surrender.

Q: There is a debate among Palestinians whether resistance operations should be limited

to the Israeli settlers and military in the occupied territories, as Marwan Barghouti had

urged, or extended to targets, including civilian targets, in Israel. How does Hamas decide

what route to go?

ABU SHANAB: It depends on Israel’s willingness to respect Palestinian civilians. Palestin-

ians will not attack Israeli civilians if the Israelis stop killing Palestinian civilians. All

religious teachings say “an eye for an eye.” When the Israelis inflict damage on the

Palestinians, they have to understand that the Palestinians will respond. We are not

attacking the Israelis, we are defending ourselves, and our actions are a reaction to Israeli

attacks on us.

Q: Under what conditions would Hamas halt its armed struggle?

ABU SHANAB: If the Israelis are willing to fully withdraw from the 1967 occupied territo-

ries and they present a timetable for doing so. That’s been our condition since Oslo. But

in the intervening nine years, the Israelis have shown no such willingness. Instead,

gaess.p65 11/7/2002, 11:57 AM107

108


they’ve continued to expand their settlements.

Q: So we’re really just talking about implementing U.N. Security Council Resolution 242?

ABU SHANAB: Yes.

Q: The possibility of an upcoming Middle East peace conference has temporarily dimmed,

but in what instances would Hamas see something positive emerging from such a confer-

ence? More specifically, would Hamas be willing to take another chance and freeze its

armed struggle to see what progress a conference might produce?

ABU SHANAB: This might happen if there is hope for meaningful international intervention,

especially on the part of the superpower, the United States. If they came forward to

guarantee a state for our people and full Israeli withdrawal according to the U.N. resolu-

tion, then a conference could be positive. But if the Americans merely want to sit the

Palestinians and Israelis opposite each other at a negotiating table there can be no

progress – because Israel is the relative military superpower and will try to dictate the

terms of peace. This is what the Palestinians experienced in seven years of talks during

which the Israelis proved unwilling to end their occupation.

Without any guarantee that Israel will withdraw, the Palestinian people – all of them,

after all this sacrifice, after all this suffering – will not stop their intifada. And when we

speak about intifada, we mean an intifada in all its forms, whether it is a popular intifada

of peaceful demonstrations or military activities against Israeli military forces. That the

intifada would continue is the view of all Palestinians, not only Hamas, but also Fatah, the

Popular Front, the Democratic Front, Jihad. All Palestinians see the Israeli occupation as

a threat to their lives, existence and dignity, so they will resist until the Israelis withdraw.

Q: The United States periodically sends over CIA head George Tenet to toughen up the

Palestinian security apparatus, with the implication that the Palestinian Authority will be

pressured to crack down on Hamas and the other resistance groups. Can anything be

gained from this kind of U.S. involvement?

ABU SHANAB: No. Palestinians see this as a very, very negative role. Tenet is concen-

trating on security, and security issues are not at the core of the Palestinian problem. The

Palestinian problem is a political one; the security solution comes after. In this sense,

American diplomacy shows that the U.S. wants to maintain security for the Israelis but is

not interested in a political solution for the Palestinians. Tenet came earlier and did not

succeed. He won’t succeed without a political program and agenda.

Q: Within Hamas, but also within Palestinian society as a whole, has the position on Israel

hardened during this intifada? Not many years ago there were people in Hamas who

were unwilling to accept Israel under any circumstances, and I’m wondering if those

numbers have now increased. Is there the feeling that Palestinians will never be able to

live with the Israelis?

ABU SHANAB: You know, the same can be said of the Israelis. A majority of them don’t

want to accept the Palestinians. Some Israelis even talk about their state as a biblical land

gaess.p65 11/7/2002, 11:57 AM108

109


extending from the Nile to the Euphrates. But what does it matter if some people from

Hamas don’t like Israel, and some Israelis don’t like Hamas? These are personal feel-

ings. This long conflict has developed circumstances that create this kind of outlook. [In

contrast,] I’m speaking about a political solution for the whole Palestinian issue.

Hamas is focusing on an agenda for Israel’s withdrawal from the lands taken in 1967,

the establishment of a Palestinian state and a solution for the refugees – and the only

solution to the refugee problem is U.N. Resolution 194. If these things are implemented,

the Palestinians will be satisfied, and they will be busy for more than 20 years building

their state. The new Palestine can have good relations with Israel, as well as with the

rest of our neighbors.

Q: How close do you think

they got at Camp David and

Taba to a solution?

ABU SHANAB: From one

perspective it was close

because the Israelis spoke

about withdrawing from 94

percent of the land. But

when you look at the details,

it’s clear that [Israeli Prime

Minister Ehud] Barak’s

offer was a kind of trick.

He spoke about percentages

but didn’t draw one line on the map. That was a very, very strange thing. I met with

people who were on the [Palestinian] negotiating team, and they said they had asked the

Israelis to present them with a map to show what 94 percent they were talking about.

The Israelis said, no, we are speaking only about general principles.

There was a second kind of dishonesty about percentages. Their figures did not

include Jerusalem, and Jerusalem comprises about 20 percent of the West Bank. So that

means they were talking about 90 percent of 80 percent, or only 70 percent of that

territory. In other words, they were playing games with the numbers.

And Barak wanted the Palestinians to sign a statement signifying an end to the

conflict while he simultaneously refused to discuss the issue of the refugees – and clearly

the suffering of the refugees is a central Palestinian concern. So while the negotiations

got close, they got nowhere as close as some have described.

Q: How much flexibility is there on the refugee issue?

ABU SHANAB: There are not a lot of alternatives for the people who were driven out of

their homes. Israel guarantees the right of return for Jews all over the world, whether

from Ethiopia or Russia or Brooklyn. In the same way, we’re saying to the Israelis, if you

want peace, if you want neighborly relations, let Palestinians also have the right of return.

I assure you that not all those millions of Palestinians outside will want to come back. But

Hamas is focusing on an agenda for

Israel’s withdrawal from the lands

taken in 1967, the establishment of a

Palestinian state and a solution for the

refugees . . . . If these things are

implemented, the Palestinians will be

satisfied, and they will be busy for

more than 20 years building their state.

gaess.p65 11/7/2002, 11:57 AM109

110


they have that right, as symbolic of their having roots in this land. They long for the

places their families came from. Flexibility on the refugees shouldn’t mean evading

Resolution 194, but there can be flexibility on how it is implemented. The Israelis, for

instance, could accept 10,000, 20,000 the first year, the second . . ., and so on. Their

return could be gradual over the course of time, as both peoples learn to live peacefully

together. But the Israelis have refused to even acknowledge their right to return, and that

has made Palestinian refugees more determined to struggle to realize that right.

Secondly, the Israelis want a purely Jewish state. What does this mean other than

apartheid? What would be the reaction of Americans if, for instance, the Mormons of Salt

Lake City or Boston’s Catholics said they wanted Utah to be a solely Mormon state and

Massachusetts to be under the domination of Catholics? Wouldn’t it be seen as an attempt

at discrimination? The Israelis have convinced the Western world that they have the right

to a Jewish state because of their suffering under the Nazis. But the Palestinians were not

the cause of that trouble for the Jews. Why should they suffer as a consequence? Look

at how this problem started. Jews came here and settled and forcibly displaced Palestin-

ians from their homes. Now they are telling the refugees they cannot accept their return

and the refugees should solve their problems in some other country. This is unfair.

Q: In terms though of dealing with their fears, what Israeli Jews are afraid of is that at

some point the Arabs will grow to a majority in Israel and then vote to change the nature

of the state in a way that puts Jews at risk.

ABU SHANAB: If there is a willingness to live in peace, then the Israelis and Palestinians

will jointly find a better way of living together. And if we live together, demographics

doesn’t have to be a problem. Demographically, Israelis are already outnumbered by

Arabs in this part of the world, but there is nothing to prevent them from living their lives

as Jews, just as Arabs can live as Muslims. If we treat people as human beings rather

than as merely members of particular religions, we can solve the problem.

I raised this question with an Israeli officer while I was in an Israeli jail. He told me,

look, Ismail, if you want to live in peace, why don’t you want settlers to settle in Gaza? I

said, OK, we’ll accept Israeli settlers in Gaza, but can Palestinians who are willing to live

in peace resettle in their homes in what’s now Israel? Would you accept this? He said

no. I told him that his understanding of peace meant peace for him but not for me. This

is our argument with the Israelis. The problems are complex, but they can be solved with

good will from both sides, from Palestinians and Israelis – and also on the part of the

international community, because the international community has to pay something for the

sake of absorbing the refugees.

Q: Even if they had reached an agreement at Taba, and 90 percent of the people on both

sides were satisfied, over time this whole thing would probably evolve into forms that

people can’t even anticipate today. In another hundred years, there may be a single state

with really good human-rights guarantees that assure equality for everyone.

ABU SHANAB: And at that time, what will we have? We wouldn’t have an Israeli state

but a state based on democracy.

gaess.p65 11/7/2002, 11:57 AM110

111


Q: Which ideally would be neither a Jewish nor an Islamic state.

ABU SHANAB: No, let’s speak about a democratic state, because an Islamic state is

compatible with democracy. In this way, we see the Israelis as part of this community, if

they want to live as equals. But if they want to maintain apartheid, they will never join

this community. This is the critical issue for the Israelis and the Zionist movement, as well

as for those in the West who support this state. Now the Israelis see themselves as

Westerners in an Eastern area, and they live here as strangers.

Q: In not only the American press but also most of the British press, Hamas is character-

ized as unwilling to accept a two-state solution. Its goal is said to be replacing Israel with

an Islamic state in all of historic Palestine. When I listen to you some of what you say

sounds a little like this, but on another level I hear you saying that democracy should in

and of itself be the preferred form of government in both Israel and a future Palestinian

state. So I’m not totally sure whether Hamas would accept two states or not.

ABU SHANAB: First of all, we can’t answer this question unless Israel gives us our right to

build our own state. I cannot accept that Israel will exist on 78 percent of the land and

our state on 22 percent [as outlined by U.N. Resolution 242] unless Israel first acknowl-

edges that Palestinians can establish their state in that 22 percent. Without its recognizing

us we will not recognize Israel because our rights encompass more than the 1967 border.

We have a right to the whole of Palestine. We cannot, just like that, waive our right to our

homeland and forget it forever.

So we’ve stated our minimum need and, as a political solution, said, let our generation

live in a two-state solution on those minimum requirements – the 1967 border and the

refugees’ right of return. When Israel announces its intention to fully withdraw, we can

declare a truce and move forward according to the actual progress of life. In that con-

text, we could recognize Israel. Let us live within that framework for 10 years, for 20

years, and see if it is acceptable for later generations. The next generation will tolerate it

if conditions are good and they’re allowed to get on with their own lives.

Q: A person listening to you could read it both ways, and they obviously do. They could

read it as the position of someone who’s taking a very practical approach and saying that

Hamas would be willing to try a two-state solution to see how it initially works, and then if

it’s lacking, to adjust it and build on that in a peaceful way. Another person could say that

this is just Hamas saying we’re going to get a little bit here . . .

ABU SHANAB: And then later on we’ll take everything? No. Islamic teachings say you

have to fulfill your agreements. If we sign any agreement, we have to respect it. It’s

totally rejected by Islamic teaching that you can say one thing and then do something else.

But because our crisis is very complex, and we’re being asked to accept a compromise of

22 percent when we have a right to 100 percent of [historic] Palestine, we’re exploring a

practical way to solve the problem – to begin from our minimum need. This would offer a

good starting point for the next generation [of Palestinians], because the next generation

will have less enthusiasm for historical things, like the Indians in the United States.

You will find extremist thinking on both sides. I can give you a thousand examples of

gaess.p65 11/7/2002, 11:57 AM111

112


maximalist Israeli claims, including calls to implement a transfer policy [to deport all

Palestinians out of Palestine]. You have to put all of this in perspective and be fair about

it. We’re speaking about the historic Palestine we left 50 years ago. The Jews are

talking about wanting to come back to lands they left 5,000 years ago. Who is being more

practical?

If you ask a Palestinian what he wants, he will say he wants his land in Israel. That’s

all. He’s not speaking about politics or about a Jewish state or a Palestinian state, just

about going back to his land. I can talk to you about Palestinian rights. I can give you

many arguments to try to convince you. But in the end we need a solution. Hamas is

offering a practical approach to that solution.

MAHMOUD AL-ZAHAR

GAESS: Hamas and the Palestinian Authority have from the outset had an on-again, off-

again relationship. How would you characterize their interaction at this time, and what is

the view of Hamas on Palestinian reforms?

ZAHAR: We see the Palestinian Authority as part of the PLO, as our political opponent

rather than our enemy. We believe their intention is to liberate Palestine, and that’s also

our intention; and to establish an independent state, and we share that aim. But there is a

big difference between us. Ideologically, they are secular and so are more liable for

corruption. Hamas is religious. Everyone here will testify that we are honest, and as part

of our program we have run an educational system and distributed money to people in

need – without a single instance of corruption. So we are looking for the establishment of

a genuine authority that distributes money fairly so it can be used to build roads on the one

hand and credible institutions on the other.

We did not oppose

[Arafat’s] negotiations with

Israel because we oppose

negotiations per se. We

opposed the talks because

the terms of the Oslo

accords put us at a negotiat-

ing disadvantage and would

bring us nothing. And Israeli

actions have proven our

assumption to be true. [During the Oslo era] the Palestinian Authority jailed our people

and confiscated our guns and money. Nevertheless, we kept open the channels of

communication and used no violence against them. I think over time we’ve convinced

them that armed struggle against Israel is our only alternative, because if you are really

looking for the liberation of Palestine, Israel will never leave this area without losses. So

now we stand side by side with the Palestinian Authority in defending ourselves against

the occupation.

Despite what the Americans like to say, we are not terrorists. We are looking for the

We opposed the talks because the

terms of the Oslo accords put us at a

negotiating disadvantage and would

bring us nothing. And Israeli actions

have proven our assumption to be true.

gaess.p65 11/7/2002, 11:57 AM112

113


liberation of our lands, so that our people can establish their sovereign state and put down

their guns. For these reasons we are ready to cooperate with the Palestinian Authority,

but at the same time we will defend our vision of how to solve the challenges facing

Palestinians, including the question of the occupation.

Q: What’s Hamas’s position on the upcoming elections?

ZAHAR: We’ve called for reforming the PLO to give a chance for every Palestinian

faction to be represented in the PLO council according to the size of its popular support.

If we (Hamas) represent 5 percent of Palestinians, then we should have 5 percent of the

seats in the [PLO’s] Palestinian National Council; if we are 51 percent, everybody should

respect the will of the people.

Secondly, concerning Oslo, we refuse to participate in any sort of Oslo regime

because Oslo means autonomy, under which Israel feels it has the right to impose limited

self-government on us in our own land. We are unequivocally opposed to any continuation

of the autonomy period.

We are ready to participate in the municipal elections and in the legislative election, as

long as they are fair and free of corruption. We won’t participate in the Palestinian

Legislative Council that was established under autonomy, but we are ready to take part in

the Palestinian National Council, and are also open to the idea of participation in a tempo-

rary government not related to Oslo. We are not seeking a role because we enjoy holding

power, but because we want to minimize the suffering of the Palestinian people in the

face of Israeli aggression, and also to halt the corruption and destruction of our infrastruc-

ture that have occurred under the autonomy administration.

Q: If Hamas did participate in elections, would it be through the Khalas party?

ZAHAR: No, if we are going to take part, it will be as Hamas. But if any other Islamic

party wants to participate, nobody can prevent them. Khalas is a group of Islamists [with

roots in Hamas] who believe in the political path alone – they don’t share in the armed

struggle against Israel. But if Hamas decides to enter as Hamas, I think everybody would

be under the flag of Hamas. Believe me, people are not now supporting the notion that

Palestinian goals are achievable through politics alone. They are looking for the means to

liberate their land, how to convince the Israelis to dismantle their settlements and with-

draw. In my opinion, if there are fair municipal elections we are going to win. And if we

participate in any [national] council, we are going to be the majority, because Hamas is

widely supported and because the Palestinian Authority has such a bad reputation.

Q: What must the U.S. do to move the conflict toward a close?

ZAHAR: America, as the sole superpower, should support justice. American interests will

not be served by blind support of Israel against the Palestinian people. Any American

administration should ask itself a series of very simple questions: Is the occupation legal; is

it moral; does it serve American interests? If the answers are “no,” then America should

advance ideas on how to end it. We were unable to get an Israeli withdrawal through the

[Oslo] negotiations. What is the alternative?

gaess.p65 11/7/2002, 11:57 AM113

114


It would be a historic mistake for America to consider Islam as an enemy, or the new

enemy. Islam is not the ex-Soviet Union, Islam is not Iraq, it is not Egypt, nor Palestine.

Islam is a very constructive agent, not only in our history but also in the present situation.

And America would be committing a very big mistake if it characterized Islam as a

form of terrorism. Nobody in the Arab world sees Hamas in terrorist terms. First, we are

attempting to liberate our land. Second, we’ve limited our resistance activities to within

the borders of [historic] Palestine. Not one bullet has been fired outside Palestine, even

though Israel tried to assassinate [Hamas political leader] Khalid Meshal in Jordan [in

1997]. Third, we have not carried out a single operation against any Jew because they

are Jewish, but only because of their existence on our land as an occupier. And we’ve

concentrated our activities on Israeli settlers and military targets.

Many times we’ve warned the Israeli leadership that if they persist in killing our

civilians, they can expect the same poison in response. The aim of Palestinian attacks

against Israeli civilians is to deter Israel’s killing of our civilians. On numerous occasions

we’ve reaffirmed our standing offer to Israel for a mutual cessation of attacks on civil-

ians. If Israel agreed, no Israeli civilian would be killed, and the confrontation would be

between the Israeli and Palestinian military – even though the Americans are daily

supplying Israel with sophisticated weapons, ammunition and dollars that enable it to

amass an enormous arsenal we have no way of matching.

Q: If Israel stopped killing Palestinian civilians, would Hamas limit its armed struggle to

the 1967 occupied area?

ZAHAR: Yes, we would stop operations in the area of ’48 (Israel). But, up to now, they

have not agreed to that.

Q: Should the Palestinians continue to pursue talks with the U.S., or should Arafat

condition such talks on, for example, the U.S.’s making clear that Israel must withdraw to

the 1967 borders?

ZAHAR: No, politics is not a football game. We have to continue talking with everybody.

But Mr. Arafat should present the real attitude of Palestinians, and the stance of Hamas is

an integral part of that. He should let America know that our people are admiring the

martyr operations, not because they are pleased about the human casualties but because

they are struggling for sovereignty. Genuine sovereignty, not autonomy. So Arafat should

speak frankly to America. If we mislead America through a kind of political posturing, it

is not going to serve the Palestinian interest or the American interest.

Our aim is the same as any poor country in the world: to be governed by their real

representatives, by their own institutions, and to share in the march of progress. As you

can see, the poorest area in America is more well-off than how people are living here. So

our intention is to make life special for our children, to enable the next generation to live

lives more easy than our own.

We need America to listen carefully, and to analyze carefully, and lastly to decide

carefully – because, believe me, nobody in the world accepts America’s current policy.

We don’t consider the American people our enemy. We differentiate between the

gaess.p65 11/7/2002, 11:57 AM114

115


American people and the pro-Zionists in the American administration who are supporting

Israel. But people in America need to inform themselves about what is happening in the

world. Ignorance in America is a disease pushing it toward a disastrous condition.

When Mr. Bush spoke about the Crusades, he aroused a deep historical hatred in this

region. There are extremists in the American administration, and they misuse power.

Blind power will lead nowhere. We read many books about foolish people who believe in

a confrontational relationship with the rest of the world. Without cooperation, the human

race is not going to survive. Atomic bombs will take their toll without exception. We are

facing a choice between progress and a cataclysm in which everyone will be the loser.

INTERVIEWS FROM GAZA: PALESTINIAN OPTIONS

UNDER SIEGE

Ziad Abu-Amr, Haider Abdel Shafi

Dr. Abu-Amr and Dr. Abdel Shafi are independent, pro-democracy activists

based in Gaza City. Both were elected to the Palestinian Legislative

Council in 1996 under the interim Oslo accords. Abu-Amr, an academic

who has published widely, is the chairman of the PLC’s political

committee. Abdel Shafi, a former chief Palestinian negotiator in talks with

Israel, also is head of the Red Crescent Society in Gaza. The interviews

were conducted by New York-based journalist Roger Gaess during June

2002 in Gaza City.

ZIAD ABU-AMR

GAESS: What can the Palestinians do under these circumstances? How do they move

toward their long-term goals, including viable statehood, when faced with people like

Sharon and the possibility of Netanyahu’s return?

ABU-AMR: I think it’s clear that things are not going anywhere with the current Israeli

policies. If the siege goes on, the occupation continues, the incursions into Palestinian

areas, then I think our life is impossible. It’s difficult for people to live any normal life,

even to go about doing what they need to do in terms of work, travel, trade. And I think

the continuation of this situation will impede the process of reform that the Palestinians

are initiating and that the world, including the Israelis, expects them to undertake. How

gaess.p65 11/7/2002, 11:57 AM115

interviews from gaza: what hamas wants

Documents